WPCV )1> <7JʦѶ KJ"i0`_3<ą] $:³lpPWNíhF ^zQN*?sD)f匇) UB"@v~*Ovؗ VLzXqj9{3wb7`Arӻ'}L˒KjHF 3zHbl+%;e4&eGh^'k6U&z7m)n^lLe&Tahw(סBW+ip# Wa[ǃF\![ӏ".ёFJU=> J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0z 0h 0P 05 0 0 0 0 0 0x 0T 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\ 07!U&6" 0<# 0nO# 0%B# 0# 0:$ 0%Y$ 0&U.'' 0) 0* D++ Aw+2+, 0]- B.. 0 CK..82-65;=~A&EHbM 0:P B-0R B]RzR 0R#@SUN V %WVM]V(aVNV^ VwV4VV mV\  `&Times New Roman'  CCRTAL0Marc Levi .   2P+M 0_level1  , 8.4 <DL!823  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level4   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level5   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level6   /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level7  4 /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level9   ,"h hhDL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2PM 0_levsl1  , 8.4 <DL!823  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levsl2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levsl3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levsl4   2( <DL!223  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levsl5   2( <DL!223  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levsl6   /% <DL!/23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levsl7  4 /% <DL!/23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levsl8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levsl9   ,"h hhDL!,23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2PM 0_levnl1  , 8.4 <DL!823   5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl3   5+` ` ` <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl4   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl5   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl6   /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl7  4 /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl9   ,"h hhDL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  6 4Heading 1XXXK<6X9`(Courier NewK &DL!&   5+ 4 <DL!5XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS <6X9`(Courier New<:Default Para< :Footnote TexXXX<:Footnote Ref0> .Footer !>44 <DL!>:8Page Number< :Body Text InK<6X9`(Courier NewK  2( <DL!2  5+ 4 <DL!5S\  `&Times New RomanS.,TOC 1     C'<6X9`(CourierC X X  442    5+ 4 <DL!5XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  <6X9`(Courier  ))..      @XXX@XXXX@X  t$tSbXXSXb-  ,-+cSO~x p X@Exxx-  XXX(2$ >|R!..      @XXX@XXXX@X  (2$ >|R!..      @XXX@XXXX@X  'dxd*+o&"D&raw Object Text <C HKKKK ( ."..      @XXX@XXXX@X  ! T$X!XXXQ  <XXX#aadd  1  (2$ >|R!..      @XXX@XXXX@X   d($      >|R!..      @XXX@XXXX@X  ?+ 4 <DL!X?!XXX  !  "    1  "A>  ݀ 4 XXXX XXXInFordv.Wainwright,477U.S.399,427(1986),  JusticeOConnorinconsideringaFloridastatuteprecluding  theexecutionoftheincompetentstated, theconclusionis v inescapablethatFloridapositivelawhascreateda Y protectedlibertyinterestinavoidingexecutionwhile < incompetent.XXXX   >|R!..      @XXX@XXXX@X  ?+ 4 <DL!X?!XXX  !  "    2  "A>  ݀ 4 XXXX XXXThus,thisprovisionwouldindicatethatthe  substantiverighttonotbeexecutedisarbitrarilydenied  tothosementallyretardedindividualswithavaliddeath v sentenceinplace.Thesubstantiverighttonotbeexecuted Y wouldonlyberestoredtoamentallyretardedindividual < undersentenceofdeathifthedeathsentenceweredeclared  o invalidandvacated.XXXX   >|R!..      @XXX@XXXX@X  ?+ 4 <DL!X?!XXX  !  "    3  "A>  ݀XXXX XXX 4 TheArkansasSupremeCourtdeniedastayofexecution  inFairchildv.Norris,861S.W.2d111(Ark.1993),only  becauseafederalcourthadpreviouslydeterminedafteran v evidentiaryhearingthatFairchildwasnotretarded.The Y dissentingjusticeinFairchild,explainedthatbutforthe < federalcourtdetermination,hewasconfidentthatFleming  o v.Zantwouldhavebeenfollowed.Fairchild,861S.W.2dat  R 112(Newbern,J.,dissenting).Here,therehasbeenno  5 evidentiaryhearingandfactualdeterminationthatMr.Floyd   isnotmentallyretarded.XXXX   >|R!..      @XXX@XXXX@X  ?+ 4 <DL!X?!XXX  !  "    4  "A>  ݀ 4 XXXX XXXSect.921.137wasunanimouslypassedbytheSenateand  byavoteof1101intheHouse.w XX X wXXX  >|R!..      @XXX@XXXX@X  ?+ 4 <DL!X?!XXX  !  "    5  "A>  ݀ 4 XXXX XXXInRhodesv.State,698N.E.2d304,309(Ind.1998),  theIndianaSupremeCourtupheldadistinctionunderthe  IndianaConstitutionbecausethedistinctionwaspremised v uponthedateofthecrime( thecontrollinglawisthat Y whichisineffectatthetimethecrimeiscommitted).XXXX   >|R!..      @XXX@XXXX@X  ?+ 4 <DL!X?!XXX  !  "    6  "A>  ݀XXXX XXX 4 Itmustbenotedthatnow,sometwelveyearslater,the  UnitedStatesSupremeCourthasgrantedcertiorarireviewin  ordertorevisitthisissueinlightofthegrowingnumber v ofstateswhichhaveprohibitedtheexecutionofthemental Y retarded.McCarverv.NorthCarolina,121S.Ct.1401 < (2001).XXXX   >|R!..      @XXX@XXXX@X  _?+ 4 <DL!X?!XXX  !  "    7  "Q>  ݀XXXX XXX 4 Thus,thetotalnumberofstateswiththedeathpenalty  andlawsprohibitingtheexecutionofthementallyretarded  hasnowreachedfifteen(15).XXXX   >|R!..      @XXX@XXXX@X  _?+ 4 <DL!X?!XXX  !  "    8  "Q>  ݀XXXX XXX 4 Considerationshouldalsobegiventothemoratorium  currentlyinplaceinIllinoisandthelegislativeattempt  inNewHampshiretoabolishthedeathpenaltyentirelywhich v wasvetoedbytheGovernorwhonotedthatnoonehasbeen Y sentencedtodeaththeresinceitsreadoptionin1976. < FurtherisshouldbenotedthattheDistrictofColumbia  o doesnothaveadeathpenaltyandthefederalgovernment  R banstheexecutionofpeoplewithmentalretardation.See  5 FederalAntiDrugAbuseActof1988,Pub.L.100690,   s7001(1),102Stat.4390,21U.S.C.s848(1)(1988ed.);    L ViolentCrimeControlandLawEnforcementActof199418  U.S.C.s3596(c)(1994).XXXX  X >|R!..      @XXX@XXXX@X  ?+ 4 <DL!X?!XXX  !  "    9  "A>  ݀XXXX XXX 4 Theseschoolrecordsdemonstratethat significantly  subaveragegeneralintellectualfunctioningexisting  concurrentlywithdeficitsinadaptivebehavior[was] v manifestedduringtheperiodfromconceptiontoage18. Y Sect.921.137(1),Fla.Stat.XXXX (2/$ >|R!..      @XXX@XXXX@X  XXX  0  )Hairline d  d#|x(|R$..      @XXX@XXXX@XHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular@Xc* r*oIU >|R!..      @XXX@XXXX@X  _       (XX0DL!X0 Q X XXXINTHESUPREMECOURTOFFLORIDAB  C  Ԉ  H+ 4 <DL!DX!H3DL!X!3QXX%CASENO.SC97043  v H+ 4 <DL!DX!H JAMESFLOYD , <  4 Appellant,  R v.    STATEOFFLORIDA ,     4 Appellee. T  ___________________________/ 7  3DL!X!3 Q\ \ NOTICEOFSUPPLEMENTALAUTHORITY M  X XXX X XXX 9DL!DX!9      &  A  ANDMOTIONFORPERMISSIONTOSUBMITSUPPLEMENTALBRIEFINGA  Ԍ 0 Ќ0DX!DX!0X XXX X XXX     H+ 4 <DL!DX!H 4 COMESNOWtheAppellant, JAMESFLOYD ,andrespectfully  givesnoticetothisCourtoftheenactmentofSect. l 921.137,Fla.Stat.,whichwassignedintolawbyGovernor 2 BushonJune12,2001,andmovesthisCourtforpermission H tosubmitsupplementalbriefing.AsnotedinMr.Floyds  initialbrief,schoolrecordsfromwhenMr.Floydwas15  yearsoldlisthisIQas51anddescribedhimasmentally J retarded(InitialBrief12,18).Mr.Floydsoughtto !`  presentanexperttotestifyinpostconvictionproceedings "&" thatMr.FloydsuffersmentalretardationandthathisIQ $$ hasbeenmeasuredat60(InitialBriefat32).Insupport b&!& ofhisrequestforanopportunitytosubmitsupplemental ((x#(  briefing,Mr.Floydstates:' )>%* / l<`  X1.Sect.921.137,providesthat [i]mpositionof[a]   deathsentenceuponamentallyretardeddefendant[is] v prohibited.Thisprovisionextendstomentallyretarded < individualsasubstancerightnottobeexecuted."  1 0  1     " >  ݀The  R legislaturedirectedthat [t]hisactshalltakeeffectupon   becomingalaw.However,thelegislaturefurtherdirected    that [t]hissectiondoesnotapplytoadefendantwhowas T  sentencedtodeathpriortotheeffectivedateofthis j  act."  2 0  2     ">   0 2.InFlemingv.Zant,386S.E.2d339(Ga.1989),  theGeorgiaSupremeCourtwaspresentedwithasimilar l enactmentprecludingtheexecutionofonefoundtobe 2 mentallyretarded.However,thestatutewasonlytoapply H tocapitalproceedingsthatbeganafterJuly1,1988.As  theGeorgiaSupremeCourtnoted, Onitsfacethestatute  doesnotapplytoSonFleming,whowastriedmorethanten J yearsago.386S.E.2dat341.Afterfullbriefingand  oralargument,theGeorgiaSupremeCourtheldthat although v theremaybenonationalconsensusagainstexecutingthe < mentallyretarded,thisstatesconsensusisclear.386  R S.E.2dat342.Thus,theexecutionofthementally   retardedsentencedtodeathbeforethestatuteseffective    dateviolatedtheGeorgiaConstitutionsprohibitionagainst T  cruelandunusualpunishments."  3 0  3     ")>   j  3.InthepastmembersofthisCourthaveindicated 0 thatevenwithoutlegislativeactionprohibitingthe  executionofthementalretarded,theFloridaConstitutions l prohibitionagainst cruelorunusualpunishmentshouldbe 2 construedtobantheexecutionofamentallyretarded H individual.Woodsv.State,531So.2d79,83(Fla.  1988)(Barkett,J.dissenting,joinedbyShawandKogan,  JJ.);Hallv.State,742So.2d225,231(Fla. J 1999)(Anstead,J.dissenting,joinedbyPariente,J.). !`  Certainly,theFloridalegislaturesadoptionofSect. "&" 921.137andtheGovernorsdecisiontosignitspeaks  volumesregardingthedevelopmentofaconsensuswithinthe v StateofFloridathatmentallyretardedindividualsshould < notbeexecuted."  4 0  4     ">  ݀Whileaddressingtheconstitutionalityof  R theelectricchair,JusticeQuincerecentlystated, Courts   shouldinsteadgiveeffecttothelegislativeenactmentasa    reflectionofthewillandthemoralvaluesofthepeople. T  Provenzanov.Moore,744So.2d413,421(Fla.1999).The j  legislatureandtheGovernorhavenowspoken.ThisCourt 0 shouldreconsidertheissueofwhethertheFlorida  Constitutionprecludestheexecutionofthementally l retardedinlightoftheconsensuswithintheStateof 2 Floridathatsuchindividualsshouldnotbeexecuted. H 4.Additionally,Mr.Floydwouldnotethatunder  Floridasnewprovision,thedateofthesentencing  determineswhetheramentallyretardedpersonmaybe J executed."  5v 0  5     "R>  ݀Forexample,assumingMr.Floydsdeathsentence !`  isvacatedonothergroundsandaresentencingisordered,a "&" deathsentencewillbeprecludedunderthenewprovisionif $$ itisdeterminedthatMr.Floydismentallyretarded.The  dateofthecrimedoesnotcontrol,butthedateofthe v sentencing.Thedistinctionissurelyarbitrary.Those < mentallyretardedindividualsalreadysentencedtodeathwho  R areluckyenoughtogetaresentencingorderedonother   groundsmaynotberesentencedtodeath.However,mental    retardedindividualswhodonotobtainaresentencingon T  othergroundswouldnotgetthebenefitofthenew j  provision.Thedifferenceintreatmentofthosedeath 0 sentencedmentallyretardedindividualsturnsonafactor  entirelyunrelatedtoeitherthecircumstancesofthecrime l orthecharacterofthedefendant.Greggv.Georgia,428 2 U.S.153,199(1976)( Furmanheldonlythat,inorderto H minimizetheriskthatthedeathpenaltywouldbeimposedon  acapriciouslyselectedgroupofoffenders,thedecisionto  imposeithadtobeguidedbystandardssothatthe J sentencingauthoritywouldfocusontheparticularized !`  circumstancesofthecrimeandthedefendant.).Thus,such "&" anarbitrarydistinctioncallsintoquestionFloridas $$ capitalsentencingprocess. b&!& 5.Moreover,thisCourthasheldthat thedeath ((x#( penaltyiseithercruelorunusualifimposedupononewho )>%* wasundertheageofsixteenwhencommittingthecrime. +', Allenv.State,636So.2d494,497(Fla.1994).Thisis  becausethisCourtcouldnot countenancearulethatwould v resultinsomeyoungjuvenilesbeingexecutedwhilethevast < majorityofotherswerenot,evenwherethecrimeswere  R similar.Id.SeeBrennanv.State,754So.2d1(Fla.   1999).Inlightofthenewlegislativeenactmenttherecan    benorealdisputethatitwillbeunusualforamentally T  retardedindividualtobeexecuted.Thus,theFlorida j  Constitutionwillnot countenancearulethatwouldpermit 0 amentallyretardedpersontobeexecutedwhileother  mentallyretardedpersonshaveasubstantiverighttonotbe l executed. 2 6. Aprisonerunderadeathsentenceremainsa H livingpersonandconsequentlyhasaninterestinhislife.  OhioAdultParoleAuthorityv.Woodard,523U.S.272,288  (1998)(OConnor,J.,concurring).Mr.Floydissucha J prisonerwithsuchaninterest.Hehasfurtherbeenfound !`  tobeamentallyretardedindividual,andthereforewithin "&" thescopeofthoseindividualsprotectedSect.921.137. $$  LibertyinterestsprotectedbytheFourteenthAmendmentmay b&!& arisefromtwosources"theDueProcessClauseitselfandthe ((x#( lawsoftheStates.Hewittv.Helms,459U.S.460,466 )>%* (1983).TheFloridalegislatureandtheGovernorhave +', determinedthatmentallyretardedindividualslikeMr.Floyd  haveasubstantiverighttonotbeexecuted.Apparentlyfor v thesakeoffinality,thelegislativeenactmentdeprivesMr. < Floydthesubstancerightextendedtoothermentally  R retardedindividuals.ItisundisputedthattheFlorida   legislaturedoeshavethepowertoenact substantivelaw.    Allenv.Butterworth,756So.2d52,59(Fla.2000). T  However,itisequallyundisputedthatitisforthecourts j  todetermine whethertheStatespositivelawhascreateda 0 libertyinterestandwhetheritsproceduresareadequateto  protectthatinterestfromarbitrarydeprivation.Fordv. l Wainwright,477U.S.at43031.Therereallyshouldbeno 2 disputethatthelegislativeenactmenthasarbitrarily H deprivedMr.Floydofasubstantiverightinviolationof  hisconstitutionalrights.  7.Thecircumstancesareverymuchakintothose J presentJusticeOConnorfoundtobepresentinFordv. !`  Wainwright.There,theFloridalegislaturehadextendeda "&" substantivetorighttoincompetentindividualsunder $$ sentenceofdeath.However,theproceduresaffordedthose b&!& individualsforvindicatingthatrightwerefoundtobe ((x#( inadequate.Fordv.Wainwright,477U.S.at430(OConnor, )>%* J,concurringinresult)( BecauseFloridasproceduresare +', inadequatetosatisfyeventheminimalrequirementsofdue  processinthiscontext,Iwouldvacatethejudgmentbelow v withinstructionsthatthecasebereturnedtoFloridaso < thatitmightassesspetitionerscompetencyinamanner  R thataccordswiththecommandoftheFourteenth   Amendment.).Thereafter,thisCourtpromulgatedcourt    rulessettingforththeprocedurefordeterminingwhetheran T  individualwascompetenttobeexecuted.SeeRule3.811, j  Fla.R.Cr.Pro. 0 8.Additionally,theEighthAmendmenttotheUnited  StatesConstitutionprohibitscruelandunusualpunishment. l TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasaddressedtheEighth 2 Amendmentandexplaineditsdynamiccharacter: H %X XXX  ?( <DL!X!?  X%6  Timeworkschanges,bringsintoexistencenew  conditionsandpurposes.Thereforeaprincipleto  bevitalmustbecapableofwiderapplicationthan  themischiefwhichgivesitbirth.Thisis g peculiarlytrueofconstitutions.Theyarenot J ephemeralenactments,designedtomeetpassing - } occasions.Theyare,tousethewordsofChief !`  JusticeMarshall,"designedtoapproach !C! immortalityasnearlyhumaninstitutionscan "&" approachit."%6V7݌ # # Ќ ' X!  X!'X XXX     *** % %   %X XXX  ?( <DL!X!?  %:  The[cruelandunusualpunishmentclause],inthe E'"' opinionofthelearnedcommentators,maybe ((x#( thereforeprogressive,andisnotfastenedtothe  )[$) obsolete,butmayacquiremeaningaspublic )>%* opinionbecomesenlightenedbyahumanejustice.%:";݌ *!&+  ' X!  X!'X XXX    +', Weemsv.UnitedStates,217U.S.349,373,378(1910).When   theSupremeCourtaddressedwhethertheEighthAmendment v precludedtheexecutionofthosewhowere17yearsofageat < thetimetheycommittedacapitaloffense,theplurality  R explained:    WhenthisCourtcastloosefromthehistorical    mooringsconsistingoftheoriginalapplicationof q  theEighthAmendment,itdidnotembarkrudderless T  uponawideopensea.Rather,itlimitedthe 7  Amendmentsextensiontothosepracticescontrary j  tothe evolvingstandardsofdecencythatmark M  theprogressofamaturingsociety.Tropv. 0 Dulles,356U.S.,at101(plurality  opinion)(emphasisadded).   B+ 4 <DL!X!BStanfordv.Kentucky,492U.S.at37879(pluralityopinion l astopartV). 2  4 9.Onemeasureoftheevolvingstandardsofdecency H thathasbeenrepeatedlyusedbytheSupremeCourthasbeen  whetheranationalconsensusagainsttheimpositionofa  particularpunishmentinparticularcircumstancesexists. J Fordv.Wainwright,477U.S.at406( thisCourttakesinto !`  accountobjectiveevidenceofcontemporaryvaluesbefore "&" determiningwhetheraparticularpunishmentcomportswith $$ thefundamentalhumandignitythattheAmendmentprotects). b&!& Firstamongthe objectiveindiciathatreflectthepublic ((x#( attitudetowardagivensanctionarestatutespassedby )>%* societyselectedrepresentatives.McCleskeyv.Kemp,481 +', U.S.279,300(1987),quotingGreggv.Georgia,408U.S.  153,173(1976).Suchalegislativereviewenablesacourt v  todeterminewhetherourNationhassetitsfaceagainsta < punishmenttoanextentthatitcanbeconcludedthatthe  R punishmentoffendsourevolvingstandardsofdecency.   Stanford,492U.S.at383(Brennan,J.,dissenting),quoting    Trop,356U.S.at101.ThemajorityinStanfordstated, As T  farastheprimaryandmostreliableindicationofconsensus j  isconcernedthepatternofenactedlawspetitionershave 0 failedto[establishanationalconsensusagainstthe  executionofanindividualwhowas17atthetimeofthe l commissionofthecapitaloffense].492U.S.at373. 2  4 10.InEnmundv.Florida,458U.S.782(1982),the H SupremeCourtaddressedwhethertheEighthAmendment  precludedastatefromexecutinganindividualwhomerely  aidedandabettedinafelony,inthecourseofwhicha J homicideoccurred.InconcludingthattheEighthAmendment !`  precludedasentenceofdeathinsuchcircumstances,where "&" thecondemneddidnotkill,attempttokill,orintendto $$ kill,thisCourtexplained: b&!&  ?( <DL!X!?TheCoker[v.Georgia,433U.S.584(1977)] ((x#( pluralityobservedthat [a]tnotimeinthelast  )[$) 50yearshaveamajorityoftheStatesauthorized )>%* deathasapunishmentforrape.Id.,at593. *!&+ Moreimportantly,inreenactingdeathpenaltylaws +', inordertosatisfythecriteriaestablishedin ,'- Furmanv.Georgia,408U.S.238(1972),onlythree  Statesprovidedthedeathpenaltyfortherapeof  anadultwomanintheirrevisedstatutes.433 v U.S.,at594.Thepluralitythereforeconcluded Y that [t]hecurrentjudgmentwithrespecttothe < deathpenaltyforrapeisnotwhollyunanimous  o amongstatelegislatures,butitisobviously  R weighsveryheavilyonthesideofrejecting  5 capitalpunishmentasasuitablepenaltyfor   rapinganadultwoman.Id.433U.S.,at596    (footnoteomitted).     E+ 4 <DL!  X!E458U.S.at789.TheCourtinEnmundthensurveyedthelaws T  ofeachstatelegislaturetodeterminethepositionofeach j  astotheexecutionofoneconvictedoffelonymurder,but 0 whodidnotkill,attempttokill,orintendtokill.The  Courtconcluded: l %X XXX  ?( <DL!X!?  %vR  Thusonlyasmallminorityofjurisdicitions 2 eightallowthedeathpenaltytobeimposed e solelybecausethedefendantsomehowparticipated H inarobberyinthecourseofwhichamurderwas + committed.EvenifthenineStatesareincluded  wheresuchadefendantcouldbeexecutedforan  unintendedfelonymurderifsufficientaggravating  circumstancesarepresenttooutweighmitigating g circumstanceswhichoftenincludethedefendants J minimalparticipationinthemurderonlyabouta - } thirdofAmericanjurisdictionswouldeverpermit !`  adefendantwhosomehowparticipatedinarobbery !C! whereamurderoccurredtobesentencedtodie. "&" Moreover,oftheeightStateswhichhaveenacted # # newdeathpenaltystatutessince1978,none $$ authorizecapitalpunishmentinsuch % % circumstances.%vRS݌ b&!& Ќ ' X!  X!'X XXX   458U.S.at793.Thus,thefactthatatotalofseventeen ((x#( (17)statesmayhavestatutorilypermittedtheexecutionof )>%* anaccessorytofelonymurderdidnotprecludeafindingof +', anationalconsensusgiventheobvioustrendbetween1978  and1982. v  4 11.InPenryv.Lynaugh,492U.S.302,33031 < (1989),whileconsideringwhethertheEighthAmendment  R precludedtheexecutionofthementallyretarded,thisCourt   explained:     Theprohibitionagainstcruelandunusual T  punishmentsalsorecognizesthe evolving 7  standardsofdecencythatmarktheprogressofa j  maturingsociety.Tropv.Dulles,356U.S.86, M  101(1958)(pluralityopinion);Ford[v. 0 Wainwright,477U.S.399,]406[(1986)].In  discerningthose evolvingstandards,wehave  lookedtoobjectiveevidenceofhowoursociety  viewsaparticularpunishmenttoday.SeeCokerv. l Georgia,[433U.S.584,]593597[(1977)];Enmund O v.Florida,458U.S.782(1982).Theclearestand 2 mostreliableobjectiveevidenceofcontemporary e valuesisthelegislationenactedbythecountrys H legislatures. +  B+ 4 <DL!X!BInPenry,theSupremeCourtconcluded, atpresent,thereis  insufficientevidenceofanationalconsensusagainst g executingmentallyretardedpeopleconvictedofcapital - } offensesforustoconcludethatitiscategorically !C!  prohibitedbytheEighthAmendment.492U.S.at335."  6 0  6     "?`con  _ # #  4 12.Sincethedecisionin_Penry_,anational   consensushasdevelopedagainstexecutingthemental v retarded.AsreportedonJune16,2001,PresidentBushhas < stated, Weshouldneverexecuteanybodywhoisretarded.  R AttachmentA.AsnotedintheSenateStaffAnalysisofSect   921.137,twelvestateshadjoinedGeorgiasincethe_Penry_    decisioninprohibitingtheexecutionofthementally T  retarded.AttachmentB.Sincethatanalysiswaswrittenin j  Februaryofthisyear,thelisthasgrownlonger.Arizona 0 andFloridahavenewlawsprohibitingsuchexecutions."  7 0  7     "Ndcon  ݀  LegislationhaspassedinConnecticut,MissouriandTexas, l andisawaitingasignaturefromtheGovernorsofthose 2 states.Andstillotherstatesareconsideringsuch H legislationintheirlegislativesessionsthisyear.When  thetwelvestatesthatdonothaveadeathpenaltyare  included,itisclearthatamajorityofstatesprohibitthe J executionofthementalretarded."  8Y 0  8     "fcon   !`  _ 4 13.InhisInitialBriefbeforethisCourt,Mr.  Floydstated: v %X XXX  ?( <DL!X!?  %h  Mr.Floydismentallyretarded.Whenhewas15 < yearsoldandintheeighthgrade,hewas  o diagnosedasmentallyretardedbypsychologists  R withthePinellasCountyschools.JameshadanIQ  5 of51,whichplaceshiminthementallyretarded   range.Jameswasacademicallyyearsbehindhis    peers.Atage15,whenheshouldhavebeeninthe    tenthgrade,hisgradelevelwasatthethird q  gradelevel.Hemissedweeksofschool.Though T  incapableofperforminganywherenearhisgrade 7  level,Jameswaspromotedonlytomovehimalong j  sohewouldnotstandoutworsethathealready M  did.SchoolrecordsshowJameswas below 0 averageand slowinallareasofschool.%hh݌  Ќ ' X!  X!'X XXX   %X XXX  ?( <DL!X!?  % m  % mm݌̌ ' X!  X!'X XXX   %X XXX  ?( <DL!X!?  E+ 4 <DL!  X!E%)n  InitialBriefat12."  9v 0  9     "6ocon  XXXX ԀInitsAnswerBrief,theStatehasnotcontestedthese  schoolrecords.TheStatehassimplyarguedthat anymitigationthatmayhavebeen  availablefromareviewofFloydsschoolrecordswouldnotbecompellingonthefacts f ofthiscase.AnswerBriefat21.Mr.Floydhasfurtherprofferedthathehasobtaina L mentalhealthevaluationinpostconvictionandthathisIQhasbeenmeasuredat60. 2 InitialBriefat32.%)no݌ h Ќ $ X!X!$X XXX  %X XXX  ?( <DL!X!?  E+ 4 <DL!  X!E%r   4 14.TheSenateStaffAnalysisexplainedthatthe N legislationdidnotsetforthaspecificIQasnecessaryto 1 establishmentalretardation:%rfs݌  Ќ $ X!X!$X XXX   XXXX %X XXX ?( <DL!X!?  %t  ThebilldoesnotcontainasetIQlevel,but  ratheritprovidesthatlowintellectual  functioning meansperformancethatistwoormore m standarddeviationsfromthemeanscoreona P  standardizedintelligencetestspecifiedinthe 3!  rulesoftheDepartmentofChildrenandFamily "f! Services.Althoughthedepartmentdoesnot "I" currentlyhavearulespecifyingtheintelligence #,# test,itisanticipatedthatthedepartmentwill $ $ adoptthenationallyrecognizedtest.Two % % standarddeviationsfromthesetestsis  approximatelya70IQ,althoughitcanbeextended  upto75.Theeffectinpracticaltermswillbe v thatapersonthathasanIQofaround70orless Y willlikelyestablishanexemptionfromthedeath < penalty.%tvu݌  o Ќ ' X!  X!'XXXX   %X XXX ?( <DL!X!?  %z  %zz݌̌ ' X!  X!'XXXX   %X XXX ?( <DL!X!?  E+ 4 <DL!  X!E%<{  AttachmentBat11.Mr.Floydclearlyispersonwhointhe  5 wordsoftheSenateStaffAnalysis willlikelyestablishan   exemptionfromthedeathpenalty.%<{|݌    Ќ $ X!X!$XXXX   %X XXX ?( <DL!X!?  E+ 4 <DL!  X!E%}   4 WHEREFORE,Mr.Floydprovidesnoticeofhisintention    torelyonthissupplementalauthorityandmovesthisCourt q  forpermissiontofilesupplementalbriefingregardingthe T  effectofthisnewlegislationuponhissentenceofdeath.%}c~݌ 7  Ќ $ X!X!$XXXX   B+ 4 <DL!X!B&  X XXX 4 IHEREBYCERTIFYthatatruecopyoftheforegoing j  motionhasbeenfurnishedbyUnitedStatesMail,firstclass M  postageprepaid,toallcounselofrecordonJune18,2001. 0  4    <      4    <      4    <     PAMELAH.IZAKOWITZ   4    <     AssistantCCRCSouth l  4    <     Fla.BarNo.0053856 O  4    <     CAPITALCOLLATERAL 2  4    <     REGIONALCOUNSEL!SOUTH   e  4    <     303s.WestlandAvenue H  4    <     P.O.Box3294 +  4    <     Tampa,FL33606   4    <     (813)2594424   4  4    <     MARTINJ.MCCLAIN g  4    <     SpecialAssistantCCRCSouth J  4    <     Fla.BarNo.0754773 - }  4    <     9701ShoreRd.Apt.1D !`   4    <     Brooklyn,NY11209'} !C! &   4    <     (718)7482332 "&"  4    <     AttorneysforMr.Floyd'" $$ Copiesfurnishedto: b&!& CarolDittmar ((x#( AssistantAttorneyGeneral  )[$) %X XXX  ?( <DL!X!?  E+ 4 <DL!  X!E%*  %*݌̌ $ X!X!$X XXX   XXXX B+ 4 <DL!X!B